January 07, 2008

Andrew Olmstead

I never heard of him while he was alive, but he must have been somebody. He's done a damned fine job from beyond the grave.

As passionate as I am about personal freedom, I don't buy the claims
of anarchists that humanity would be just fine without any government
at all. There are too many people in the world who believe that they
know best how people should live their lives, and many of them are more
than willing to use force to impose those beliefs on others. A world
without government simply wouldn't last very long; as soon as it was
established, strongmen would immediately spring up to establish their
fiefdoms. So there is a need for government to protect the people's
rights. And one of the fundamental tools to do that is an army that can
prevent outside agencies from imposing their rules on a society. A lot
of people will protest that argument by noting that the people we are
fighting in Iraq are unlikely to threaten the rights of the average
American. That's certainly true; while our enemies would certainly like
to wreak great levels of havoc on our society, the fact is they're not
likely to succeed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for
an army (setting aside debates regarding whether ours is the right size
at the moment). Americans are fortunate that we don't have to worry too
much about people coming to try and overthrow us, but part of the
reason we don't have to worry about that is because we have an army
that is stopping anyone who would try.

Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because
they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The
duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if
you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted
for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the
President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I
can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws
I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual
rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand
and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a
good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I
consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life
for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live
with that.

Comments

Andrew Olmstead

I never heard of him while he was alive, but he must have been somebody. He's done a damned fine job from beyond the grave.

As passionate as I am about personal freedom, I don't buy the claims
of anarchists that humanity would be just fine without any government
at all. There are too many people in the world who believe that they
know best how people should live their lives, and many of them are more
than willing to use force to impose those beliefs on others. A world
without government simply wouldn't last very long; as soon as it was
established, strongmen would immediately spring up to establish their
fiefdoms. So there is a need for government to protect the people's
rights. And one of the fundamental tools to do that is an army that can
prevent outside agencies from imposing their rules on a society. A lot
of people will protest that argument by noting that the people we are
fighting in Iraq are unlikely to threaten the rights of the average
American. That's certainly true; while our enemies would certainly like
to wreak great levels of havoc on our society, the fact is they're not
likely to succeed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for
an army (setting aside debates regarding whether ours is the right size
at the moment). Americans are fortunate that we don't have to worry too
much about people coming to try and overthrow us, but part of the
reason we don't have to worry about that is because we have an army
that is stopping anyone who would try.

Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because
they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The
duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if
you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted
for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the
President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I
can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws
I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual
rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand
and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a
good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I
consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life
for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live
with that.